It’s definitely tricky to strike the correct balance between providing information and preserving a personal encounter. I think Nina and I would both agree that this is possible, and that the design of that experience is crucial.

In my opinion, this is just one of those challenges that will continue to make it interesting to work in museums for quite some time!

Thanks for reading this lengthy blog! and for taking the time to offer your viewpoint too!

-Rob

Great point, and thanks for bringing Peter’s excellent article and work into the mix. There are some great reasons why Peter’s work continues to endure the test of time! For the reader, links to Peter’s work on visual velcro can be found here: http://www.aam-us.org/pubs/visualvelcro.cfm

In the article, Peter points out the same types of questions I was attempting to point out as well (although perhaps less elegantly). He’s exploring what the right balance is between analog and digital, between experience and information, and specifically what elements impact our visitors the most.

Peter makes the point that “chunks” of information must hook themselves, or make connections with other experiences or information already in our long-term memories. If I can summarize some of Peter’s points crudely… presenting “chunks” of information in multiple modes increases the chances that these will “hook on” or help our visitors make connections.

Later in the article, Peter advocates for learning lounges that can combine experiences together. This is an approach we’ve obviously tried to emulate in the Davis LAB and inside of exhibits. I like what Peter has to say about the diversity of our audiences and how they respond to interpretive resources.

“There is clearly no single magic bullet. People are inherently diverse in their learning styles, generational inclinations, entrance narratives and comfort levels with the objects we present—but zones like these that combine analog and digital resources help to weave a cognitive-emotive tapestry around the artworks that invites and structures engaged inquiry. Through such environments we welcome and meet our visitors where they are”

-Rob

There still remains an outstanding debate in my mind regarding whether or not even well designed “experiences” in art museums offer an appreciably better connection to works of art than more unobtrusive offerings of information which allow audiences to pick-and-choose their own experiences with works of art. Apart from leading audiences by a nose-ring through what they should think/experience there must be a place for a clean, open and personal interpretation of our collections.

What did you mean by well designed experiences versus unobtrusive offerings of information? Can you clarify? This is an interesting discussion!

I think most museum educators feel that the best interpretive materials help the visitor to connect to the objects (Peter Samis’s visual velcro) on their own terms – and offer multiple points of entry and never tell the viewer what to think!

There’s incredibly *deep* value in everyone getting outside of their traditional work affiliations. Art museum folk should work at other kinds of museums and vice versa.

Dan Kohl (our Director of Design) and I have both worked across a broad range of museums and seen their different perspectives in exhibit design and experience — I think that, coupled with a desire to be family friendly through our Education Department has gotten us of on the right foot with our visitors. The alternate experience puts us in a position about focusing on how to engage a visitor as opposed to creating another art museum exhibit. It’s not that they’re exclusive, it’s that you see parallels and different solutions to solve similar problems. And, it’s applying a different solution to the same problem that really helps me learn about how engage with our visitors.